Salt water as fuel

I've found this and haven't seen it mentioned in here yet:
Salt water as fuel

Haven't seen any mentions on how much energy is needed to split the water by this process..




[edit on 29-5-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by scarystuff


Haven't seen any mentions on how much energy is needed to split the water by this process..



[edit on 29-5-2007 by UM_Gazz]

It is much less than oil, the whole oil process from scratch, survey, drilling, pumping, storage, security, safety, control, politic and WARS!!!!!!!!





[edit on 29-5-2007 by kontol]

It's a great discovery, no doubt. I just wonder how much power it takes to run the radio wave generator. This may be a case of using electricity from the grid, which is for the most part generated by burning fossil fuels, and using it to power up a battery to power the wave generator in the car. Which really wouldn't solve the problem, depending on the power ratio, it could actually make it worse.

You wouldn't necessarily need energy from the grid because you'd draw it off the energy generated but if the ratio were too high it would be a drawback. Personally I'd be surprised if it required more than 30% of the energy produced.

It may not solve global warming as I assume it still creates CO2, but it does free us from burning oil.

It means that overnight countries like Iran will lose revenues to build bombs and buy weapons. I have long believed the way to solve middle east tension is to make oil redundant.

Originally posted by sy.gunson

It means that overnight countries like Iran will lose revenues to build bombs and buy weapons. I have long believed the way to solve middle east tension is to make oil redundant.

True, to make oil redundant is to make America redundant.

It is America who start wars in Middle-East. Oil redundant means no more wars hence America sell no weapons, sell no world news, control no oil price, oil companies go bankrupt, USA economy halt. Then civil wars, then no world control, no world police no more.

Oil Redundant is the last thing American want to hear, the oil must go on until the last drop.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
You wouldn't necessarily need energy from the grid because you'd draw it off the energy generated but if the ratio were too high it would be a drawback. Personally I'd be surprised if it required more than 30% of the energy produced.

It may not solve global warming as I assume it still creates CO2, but it does free us from burning oil.

It means that overnight countries like Iran will lose revenues to build bombs and buy weapons. I have long believed the way to solve middle east tension is to make oil redundant.

Found this page:

peswiki.com...:Jo hn_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Waves

While the phenomenon is interesting, it is not yet practical for energy generation. More energy is consumed by the radio frequency device than is produced for burning. Efficiency-wise, they are presently at around 76 percent of Faraday's theoretical limit.

Originally posted by kontol

True, to make oil redundant is to make America redundant.

It is America who start wars in Middle-East.

Wow, what a simplistic view on world affairs. The middle east has been in almost a constant state of war since the mid 600s AD. America has only been a country for less than 250 years, do the math.

Originally posted by kontol
Oil redundant means no more wars

Nice piece of logic there. There certainly wasn't war before oil was a commodity, right? Hmm...

Originally posted by kontol
hence America sell no weapons

Continuing to follow your logic here, since there are no more wars, no more weapons are sold. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is a huge demand for guns here just from hunters and collectors.

Originally posted by kontolsell no world news

No war means no news? Funny, I see non-war related news all the time. Maybe you should broaden your horizons a little.

Originally posted by kontolcontrol no oil price, oil companies go bankrupt

This is the one portion of your comment that actually makes sense. The oil companies would indeed go out of business. But, the salt companies, the salt water companies, and the radio wave generator companies would boom.

Originally posted by kontolUSA economy halt.

See above. The economy would be fine, probably better than fine actually because the US would be reaping the benefits of having invented the technology in the first place.

Originally posted by kontolThen civil wars, then no world control, no world police no more.

LOL.

If the fuel is free then 75% efficiency is better than nothing.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by sy.gunson]

Originally posted by sy.gunson
If the fuel is free then 75% efficiency is better than nothing.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by sy.gunson]

I don't think you understand. The fuel is not free in this case. What 75% efficiency means is that for every 1 power unit you put into it, you only get .75 back. I can think of two ways to accomplish this on a car.

One, burn fuel to provide the energy to power the radio transmitter. The only problem is that you would be burning 1 power unit of fuel and only getting 75% of the energy back to power the car. Obviously this is a complete waste.

Two, a battery could provide the power to the radio transmitter. Again, the issue here is that the energy to charge the battery has to come from somewhere. That energy is going to come from the power grid which comes primarily from fossil fuels anyways. So, this defeats the entire purpose as well. I would also guess that if this became widespread, the cost of electricity would go up dramatically due to increased demand.

This is why 75% efficiency is worthless for this purpose. Let's hope that they are able to improve the process and make it viable.

Originally posted by sy.gunson


It may not solve global warming as I assume it still creates CO2, but it does free us from burning oil.

What about the sodium hydroxide(caustic acid) produced in the reaction? What would be done with that?

Originally posted by sy.gunson
If the fuel is free then 75% efficiency is better than nothing.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by sy.gunson]

Do you understand what it means "the device needs more energy to burn the salt-water than it produces"?....

How can the media be so dumb that they are saying it will solve energy problems?
It angers me so much to see these morons are in charge of feeding us the news and telling us what to think and what to do

There are so many ways to liberate oxygen and hydrogen from water and ALL of them take more energy than what comes out.

That inventor should be shot down for hiding the truth and being so greedy.

I came across this salt water / fire video today and was interested and did some further checking on John's name.

I came across the following comments from John Kanzius.

peswiki.com...:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Waves

June 06, 2007
John Kanzius write:

"Since it appears we now have now achieved more than unity, I am going to do an embargo on releasing all further information.

"Actually there are smart individuals who have posted on different web sited and actually have a pretty good idea of what is happening."

[edit]June 01, 2007
"I am in the process of redesigning the electronics for the saltwater as to see what efficiency we can achieve.

"Why does everyone think this is a form of electrolysis?

"Some scientists who have made comments on certain web sites actually understand the mechanism of action.

"Regarding moving this forward, I want to see what are the best results we can achieve with joules in vs joules out. A chemist in Houston whom I know is going to be doing a couple of things for me this weekend." -- John Kanzius (June 01, 2007)